Spotlight on Surveillance

July 2007:
E-Verify System: DHS Changes Name, But Problems Remain for U.S. Workers

EPIC's "Spotlight on Surveillance" project scrutinizes federal government programs that affect individual privacy. For more information, see previous Spotlights on Surveillance. This month, Spotlight turns to the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system; changes were recently announced after immigration reform bills failed to pass Congress. The legislation included requirements for all U.S. employers to use an electronic eligibility verification system now called E-Verify. DHS estimates such an expansion could cost the agency about $400 million per year.^[1] E-Verify is currently free for employers, but that may change and DHS may shift the burden of paying for this system to employers.^[2]

The employment eligibility verification system previously known as "Basic Pilot" has been renamed "E-Verify."

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff recently announced several changes to the employment eligibility verification program.^[3] The agency will require more than 200,000 federal contractors to use E-Verify, an increase of more than 1,076 percent over the 17,000 employers currently registered in E-Verify.^[4] The system will use an "enhanced photograph capability" that will allow employers to check photographs in E-Verify databases.^[5] DHS will expand the number of databases E-Verify checks to include visa and passport databases; and the agency is asking states to "voluntarily" allow DHS access to their motor vehicle databases.^[6] DHS will require employers to fire employees if they were unable to resolve "no match" discrepancies within 90 days.^[7] If the employers do not terminate the workers' employment, the businesses would face fines of $11,000 or more.^[8] DHS also will raise fines against employers by 25 percent and increasingly use criminal action against employers, as opposed to administrative action.^[9]

EPIC, the Government Accountability Office, the Social Security Administration's Inspector General, and others have detailed the many shortcomings of the federal government's employment eligibility verification system, and the newly announced changes do not solve them. In fact, the changes exacerbate the problems in the current system.

History of Employment Eligibility Verification

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA") made it illegal for employers to "knowingly" employ unauthorized workers, and E-Verify (then known as "Basic Pilot") grew out of the requirement for work-eligibility verification.^[10] Basic Pilot, a joint project of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration, is an electronic employment eligibility verification system created in 1997 and implemented in all 50 states.^[11] The program is voluntary for all employers except the more than 200,000 federal contractors required by DHS.

Source: Government Accountability Office E-Verify has different processes for citizens and non-citizens who seek to confirm their employment eligibility status.

A new employee is required to fill out an Employment Eligibility Verification form (commonly known as an I-9 form) stating that she is authorized to work in the United States, and produce identification documents.^[12] This identification can be a configuration of one or two documents from a list of 29 possible items, including U.S .passport, driver's license, Social Security card, and school ID card.^[13] (The Department of Homeland Security said that it would soon publish a regulation to reduce the number of eligible documents.^[14]) Employers do not need to verify the authenticity of the ID documents, but they do need to keep a copy of them on file: for three years after the date or hire or one year after the date employment ends, whichever is later.^[15] The documents must merely pass a good-faith test: Do they look real? If an employee is found to be unauthorized, the employer must terminate her employment. Employers who do not fire unauthorized workers or who knowingly hire unauthorized workers may be fined up to $11,000 for each ineligible employee.^[16] (The Department of Homeland Security said that it would soon publish a regulation to increase fines for employers by 25 percent.^[17] DHS also said that it would be increasingly taking criminal action, instead of administrative, against employers.)

An employer can voluntarily sign up for the E-Verify program. In E-Verify, an employer fills out an online form with the new employee's name, date of birth and Social Security Number, and if the new hire states she is not a U.S. citizen, the "A" Number or I-94 Number within three days of the employee's hire date.^[18] This information is checked against Social Security Administration databases "to verify the name, SSN, and date of birth of newly-hired employees, regardless of citizenship."^[19] The SSA "maintains a record of each Social Security card, both original and replacement cards, in a system of records called the Numerical Identification File ("NUMIDENT")."^[20] NUMIDENT includes "all relevant data connected to the issuance of the Social Security card, including the appropriate codes related to citizenship status and the type of Social Security card issued."^[21] (There are three types of Social Security cards, and an individual is assigned a particular type dependent on the citizenship status and work-authorization status of the individual.^[22])

If the work authorization cannot be determined by the data in the SSA databases or if the employee is a non-citizen, her data is then checked against the Department of Homeland Security databases to verify employment eligibility.^[23] If eligibility cannot be confirmed, E-Verify sends a "tentative nonconfirmation" of work authorization status to the employer.^[24] There are several reasons for a "tentative nonconfirmation" determination including, "when the SSN, name, or date of birth does not match the information in SSA's database or if a death indicator is present," "if the new hire indicated he or she was a U.S. citizen and SSA's records did not show that the person was a U.S. citizen," or if "DHS' database does not show the newly-hired noncitizen as authorized for employment."^[25]

The employer must inform the employee of the "tentative nonconfirmation" and the employee has eight business days to contest this decision.^[26] If the employee contests the determination, SSA or DHS "is required to determine work-authorization status within 10 Federal working days."^[27] If the review by DHS or SSA still cannot determine if the employee is eligible to work in the United States, a "final nonconfirmation" is issued.^[28] A "final nonconfirmation" also is issued if the employee does not contest the "tentative nonconfirmation."^[29] A "final nonconfirmation" means the employee must be fired.^[30]

Legislation Mandating Nationwide Expansion Fails to Pass Congress

Earlier this year, Congress debated two bills that would have created a nationwide, mandatory employment eligibility verification system.^[31] An examination of H.R. 1645 and S. AMDT 1150 by EPIC found that the proposed changes would make the already-flawed identification systems worse for both U.S. citizens and documented immigrants.^[32]

Under H.R. 1645 and S. AMDT 1150, all of the nation's six million employers would have been mandated to use the E-Verify system, creating a national employment eligibility verification system of 143.6 million authorized workers.^[33] Both the House and Senate bills would have implemented the system within four years, with some exceptions for "critical" employers, who would have to begin using EEVS immediately.

Both H.R. 1645 and S.AMDT. 1150 sought to expand data sharing and collection, consolidating the power to access and control this information in the Department of Homeland Security. New exemptions were created, requiring the Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of State to disclose confidential and sensitive personal data to the Department of Homeland Security.^[34] This data would include employee data, birth and death records, driver's license and state identification files, visa and passport records and taxpayer information.

In Congressional testimony in June, EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg explained the verification systems created by the bills would "greatly diminish employee privacy and make personal information vulnerable to theft and misuse."^[35] Also, the bills would "grant to the federal government unprecedented control over the livelihoods of American citizens and significantly expand the role of the Department of Homeland Security."^[36] Especially troubling was the fact that "the Secretary of Homeland Security could create a biometric identity system for all workers in the United States and make determinations about who is allowed to work without providing the basis for a determination."^[37]

After months of debate, both bills failed to pass Congress. A couple of months later, DHS announced a number of administrative changes to the employment eligibility verification system.

Department of Homeland Security's Changes Exacerbate Current Problems in E-Verify

Source: Department of Homeland Security The Department of Homeland Security will require more than 200,000 federal contractors to use E-Verify, a program that currently includes 17,000 employers.

Under the newly announced changes, the Department of Homeland Security will (1) greatly expand E-Verify, (2) raise fines against employers by 25 percent, (3) increasingly use criminal action against employers, as opposed to administrative action, (4) add to the number of databases E-Verify checks by including visa and passport databases, (5) ask states to "voluntarily" allow DHS access to their motor vehicle databases, and (6) use an "enhanced photograph capability" that will allow employers to check photographs in E-Verify databases.^[38] These changes do not solve the many problems already in E-Verify; instead, the Department of Homeland Security has made the employment eligibility verification system worse.

The mandate for more than 200,000 federal contractors to use E-Verify will not be in place for several months because of the administrative process. However, DHS said that any federal contractor who began using E-Verify would get "bonus points." "[W]e're going to designate a vendor's participation in the system as a positive consideration to be part of the mix in evaluating DHS procurements. In other words, you're going to get points, positive points, for participating in the system if you want to get a significant DHS contract," Secretary Chertoff said.^[39] DHS also is strongly encouraging states to require employers to use E-Verify.

A broad expansion of E-Verify has severe implications for national and individual security, civil liberties and privacy. At a Congressional hearing in June 2007, the Government Accountability Office detailed the many problems associated. The system is vulnerable to employer fraud or misuse. The databases used by E-Verify are error-filled. Expansion would create enormous backlogs. Also, the cost would be enormous.

By mandating that more than 200,000 federal contractors use E-Verify, DHS will increase the number of employers using the system by more than 1,076 percent. Such a massive expansion would likely overwhelm the system, which is already backlogged by the 17,000 employers currently registered to use the program.^[40] Further, only 8,863 registered employers are "active users," defined by DHS as "employers who have run at least one query in fiscal year 2007."^[41] This new mandate would effectively increase the number of active users by 2,157 percent.

In August 2005, Citizenship and Immigration Services officials told the Government Accountability Office that a substantial expansion of the program would create significant backlogs in employment verification, in part because of the staff and resources that would be needed for manual verifications and investigations into "nonconfirmations."^[42] With 8,863 active users of E-Verify, the Social Security Administration says that "for every 100 queries submitted to the System, SSA field offices or phone representatives are contacted three times," and SSA expects a corresponding increase in workload under a program expansion.^[43]

Currently, about 8 percent of queries require manual verification by DHS or SSA.^[44] In fiscal year 2006, there were about 1.74 million verifications,^[45] which can take up to two weeks to resolve.^[46] Imagine the number of manual verifications and "tentative nonconfirmation" investigations that will occur when the number of active users is amplified by 2,157 percent.

DHS estimated that nationwide mandatory use of E-Verify could cost Customs and Immigration Services "$70 million annually for program management and $300 million to $400 million annually for compliance activities and staff," and "costs associated with other programmatic and system enhancements are currently unknown."^[47] The cost to SSA of such an expansion is unknown. Currently, SSA spends $5 million to $6 million on E-Verify, but the cost of expansion "would be driven by the field offices' increased workload required to resolve SSA tentative nonconfirmations."^[48]

The majority of such "tentative nonconfirmations" occur because of another problem in the E-Verify system: Information in the databases queried is incorrect or untimely, according to DHS and SSA.^[49] These databases have high error rates in determining work eligibility status, causing these verification problems and backlogs. In a 1997 report and a 2002 follow-up review, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice found that data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the predecessor of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), which E-Verify queries, was unreliable and "flawed in content and accuracy."^[50] In August 2005, the Government Accountability Office investigated and found errors in information from Department of Homeland Security databases.^[51]

A December 2006 report by the Social Security Administration's Office of Inspector General also found accuracy problems in databases of Citizenship and Immigration Services and Social Security Administration. ^[52] SSA's Numerical Identification File ("NUMIDENT") is used to check employment eligibility status, but the Inspector General estimated that about 17.8 million records in NUMIDENT have discrepancies with name, date of birth or death, or citizenship status.^[53] About 13 million of these incorrect records belong to U.S. citizens.^[54] About 15.3 percent of the U.S. workforce is foreign-born, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.^[55]

Such erroneous records could lead to "tentative" or "final nonconfirmation" notices for affected employees.^[56] These errors have profound consequences for U.S. citizens and documented immigrants. In June, the Government Accountability Office explained that E-Verify still "is vulnerable to employer fraud that diminishes its effectiveness and misuse that adversely affects employees . . . such as limiting work assignments or pay while employees are undergoing the verification process."^[57] These problems have been highlighted since 2002, yet they remain unresolved.

In 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) commissioned an independent analysis of the employment eligibility verification system.^[58] The analysis found that mistakes in the system led to "false negatives," where workers eligible for employment were deemed ineligible. For example, out of a sample of employees who received "final nonconfirmation" notices, 42 percent were "false negatives" and were eligible to work.^[59] The report also found that "employers do not always follow Federally mandated safeguards for the . . . program."^[60] The researchers found that employers took adverse action against an employee because of a "tentative nonconfirmation," though it is illegal.^[61]

Thirty percent of pilot employers reported restricting work assignments while employees contest a tentative nonconfirmation. Among the 67 employees who decided to contest a tentative nonconfirmation, 45 percent reported one or more of the following adverse actions: were not allowed to continue working while they straightened out their records, had their pay cut, or had their job training delayed.^[62]

Current law also prohibits employers from pre-screening job applicants before making a hiring decision, yet some employers were doing just that. In December 2006, the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General reviewed the employment eligibility verification system and found that 42 percent of employers used the program to prescreen employees, and 30 percent of employers used the program to verify the employment eligibility of their existing workforce.^[63] In 2002, the independent analysis found that, "[a]mong a sample of individuals classified on the transaction database as unresolved tentative nonconfirmations, 28 percent said that they did not receive a job offer from the pilot employer."^[64] Also, these job applicants were not informed they were being pre-screened through the employment eligibility verification system, and "[c]onsequently, they were denied not only jobs, but also the opportunity to resolve any inaccuracies in their Federal records."^[65]

This problem ties in with another found by the researchers; though "procedures were also designed to protect employee rights to resolve verification problems . . . not all employers inform their employees of verification problems."^[66] The report stated that, "73 percent of the employees who should have been informed of work authorization problems were not."^[67] Because they did not know about the "tentative nonconfirmations," the employees were not able to contest the "tentative nonconfirmation" notices. A failure to contest a "tentative nonconfirmation" results in a "final nonconfirmation" decision against the affected employee. Employers are required to terminate the employment of any individual who receives a "final nonconfirmation."

Eligible workers are not compensated for wages lost because of an incorrect "tentative nonconfirmation" determination. This certainly a nightmare scenario – a person is rejected for a job she was qualified for because the government made a mistake, and she might never learn of this problem. This illustrates the fundamental problem with E-Verify: workers are presumed unauthorized for employment unless they prove otherwise. Currently, the Social Security Administration's Inspector General databases have an error rate of at least 4.1 percent.^[68] If each of the 5.9 million employers nationwide used E-Verify for a different employee, then the error rate suggests more than 240,000 eligible workers would receive incorrect "no match" designations.^[69] There are about 143.6 million authorized workers nationwide, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.^[70] Even a one percent failure rate would affect millions of people.

"Voluntariness" Of the System Is In Doubt

Though the Department of Homeland Security has yet to find solutions to problems in the current E-Verify system, it has chosen to expand data collection and data sharing, creating even more opportunities for errors. DHS announced it will add visa and passport databases to E-Verify, and ask states to "voluntarily" allow DHS access to their motor vehicle databases. This is certainly "mission creep," where DHS would be able to use for employment purposes the data collected for licensing drivers and issuing state identification cards.

It is unclear what "voluntary" means in this context. Questions arise because of the parallel REAL ID system currently under construction at the Department of Homeland Security. The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a law imposing federal technological standards and verification procedures on state driver's licenses and identification cards, many of which are beyond the current capacity of the federal government, and mandating state compliance by May 2008.^[71] REAL ID includes the requirement that states allow the federal government to link together their databases.

Conclusion

Though the Department of Homeland Security is requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify, the agency cannot mandate its use by the states. However DHS announced that it is strongly encouraging states to require employers to register and use the employment eligibility verification system. The states are split on this issue.

Some states, including Arizona and Oklahoma, have passed legislation mandating the use of E-Verify by public contractors.^[72] Just days after DHS announced the new regulations for E-Verify, however, the Illinois governor signed legislation specifically banning the use of the employment eligibility verification system.^[73] Illinois legislators cited E-Verify's high error rate and the problems that incorrect "nonconfirmations" would cause for employers and employees.^[74]

Shortly after DHS announced changes to E-Verify, the AFL-CIO, ACLU, and National Immigration Law Center filed suit to permanently bar the implementation of the DHS rule on "no match" letters.^[75] The new rule would require employers to fire employees if they were unable to resolve "no match" discrepancies within 90 days; if the employers did not terminate the workers' employment, the businesses would face fines of $11,000 or more.^[76] The lawsuit is pending in federal court. The judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking DHS from implementing the new rule.^[77] If the government is allowed to implement the rule, it would begin issuing 140,000 "no match" letters to employers, which would affect about 8 million workers nationwide.^[78]

In a 2005 review of the employment eligibility verification system, GAO found "a number of weaknesses in the pilot program's implementation, including its inability to detect identity fraud and DHS delays in entering data into its databases, could adversely affect increased use of the pilot program, if not addressed."^[79] These weaknesses have not been addressed even though the employment eligibility verification system has been increased by more than 1,000 percent. Illinois and others are right to be wary of E-Verify, and other states should look closely at the shortcomings of the employment eligibility verification system.

---

^[1] Richard M. Stana, Dir., Homeland Sec. & Justice Issues, Gov't Accountability Office, Testimony at a Hearing on Employment Eligibility Verification Systems Before the Subcom. on Social Sec., H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 110th Cong., 3 (June 7, 2007) ["GAO Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification"], available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07924t.pdf and http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=564.

^[2] See generally Dep't of Homeland Sec., Employment Eligibility Verification System FAQs, http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/programs/gc_1185222483635.shtm.

^[3] Press Release, Dep't of Homeland Sec., Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law (Aug. 10, 2007) ["DHS Press Release on E-Verify"], available at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1186757867585.shtm.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id.

^[7] Dep't of Homeland Sec., Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter: Final Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 45,611, 45,617, Aug. 15, 2007 [hereinafter "New ‘No Match' Rule"], available at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-16066.htm.

^[8] Id. at 45,612 – 45, 614.

^[9] DHS Press Release on E-Verify, supra note 3.

^[10] Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. §1324a (1986), supplanted by Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, 8 U.S.C. §1324a(b) (1996) ["IRIRA"].

^[11] Id., Basic Pilot Extension Act, Pub. L. 107-128 (2001); and Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act, Pub. L. No. 108-156 (2003).

^[12] IRIRA, supra note 10.

^[13] Employment Eligibility Immigration Form (Form I-9), OMB No. 1615-0047, at 3.

^[14] DHS Press Release on E-Verify, supra note 3.

^[15] IRIRA, supra note 10.

^[16] Id.

^[17] DHS Press Release on E-Verify, supra note 3.

^[18] Office of Inspector Gen., Soc. Sec. Admin, Congressional Response Report: Accuracy of the Social Security Administration's Numident File, A-08-06-26100, Appendix D (Dec. 18, 2006) ["Inspector General Report on SSA Database"], available at http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-08-06-26100.pdf.

^[19] Id.

^[20] Inst. for Survey Research, Temple Univ., and Westat, Findings of the Basic Pilot Evaluation (June 2002) ["Detailed Independent Analysis of Basic Pilot"], available at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9cc5d0676988d010VgnVCM1130048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM1130045f3d6a1RCRD.

^[21] Id. at 35.

^[22] "The three types of cards appear to be identical except for the presence or absence of a particular legend. The type of card issued to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, refugees, and asylees has no legend. A Social Security card with the legend ‘Valid for work only with INS Authorization' is issued to noncitizens with temporary work authorization. Noncitizens without work authorization who have a legitimate non- work reason for having a Social Security number are issued cards that include the legend ‘Not Valid for Employment.'" Id.

^[23] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at Appendix D, supra note 18.

^[24] Id.

^[25] Id.

^[26] Id.

^[27] Detailed Independent Analysis of Basic Pilot at 44, supra note 20.

^[28] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at Appendix D, supra note 18.

^[29] Detailed Independent Analysis of Basic Pilot at 44, supra note 20.

^[30] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at Appendix D, supra note 18.

^[31] Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy Act, of 2007, H.R. 1645, 110th Cong. (2007) ["H.R. 1645"], available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0507/hr1645.pdf; Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, S.AMDT. 1150 to S. 1348, 110th Cong. (2007) ["S.AMDT. 1150"], available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0507/samdt1150.pdf.

^[32] EPIC, Spotlight on Surveillance, National Employment Database Could Prevent Millions of Citizens From Obtaining Jobs (May 2007), http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0507/.

^[33] H.R. 1645 §301(a) (amending §274A(c)); S.AMDT. 1150 §302(a) (amending §274A(d)).

^[34] H.R. 1645 §301(b)(2), §306; S.AMDT. 1150 §302(a) (amending §274A(c)(9)(F)), §304(a)(1), §308.

^[35] Marc Rotenberg, Exec. Dir., EPIC, Testimony and Statement for the Record at a Hearing on Employment Eligibility Verification Systems (EEVS) Before the Subcomm. on Social Sec., H. Comm on Ways & Means, 110th Cong. (June 7, 2007), available at http://www.epic.org/privacy/ssn/eevs_test_060707.pdf.

^[36] Id. at 2.

^[37] Id.

^[38] Id.

^[39] Dep't of Homeland Sec., Remarks By Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff And Commerce Secretary Gutierrez At A Press Conference On Border Security And Administrative Immigration Reforms, Aug. 10, 2007 [hereinafter "DHS Remarks on E-Verify Changes"], available at http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1186781502047.shtm.

^[40] Frederick G. Streckewald, Assistant Deputy Comm'r, Disability & Income Sec. Programs, Soc. Sec. Admin., Testimony at a Hearing on Employment Eligibility Verification Systems Before the Subcom. on Social Sec., H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 110th Cong. (June 7, 2007) ["SSA Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification"], available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=564.

^[41] GAO Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification at 8, supra note 1.

^[42] Gov't Accountability Office, Immigration Enforcement: Weaknesses Hinder Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement Efforts, GAO-05-813 6 (Aug. 2005) ["GAO Report on Basic Pilot"], available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05813.pdf.

^[43] SSA Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification at 4, supra note 40.

^[44] Id. at 2.

^[45] Id.

^[46] GAO Report on Basic Pilot at 24, supra note 42.

^[47] GAO Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification at 3, supra note 1.

^[48] Id. at 9.

^[49] Id. at 3.

^[50] Office of Inspector Gen., Dep't of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service Monitoring of Nonimmigrant Overstays, Rept. No. I-97-08 (Sept. 1997), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e9708/index.htm; Follow-Up Report on INS Efforts to Improve the Control of Nonimmigrant Overstays, Rept. No. I-2002-006 (Apr. 2002), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0206/index.htm/; and Immigration and Naturalization Service's Ability to Provide Timely and Accurate Alien Information to the Social Security Administration, Rept. No. I-2003-001 (Nov. 2002), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/INS/e0301/final.pdf.

^[51] GAO Report on Basic Pilot at 25, supra note 42.

^[52] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at 15, supra note 18.

^[53] Id. at 6.

^[54] Id. at Appendix C-2.

^[55] Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics In 2006 (Apr. 25, 2007), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf.

^[56] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at 6, supra note 18.

^[57] GAO Testimony on Employment Eligibility Verification at 4, supra note 1.

^[58] Inst. for Survey Research, Temple Univ., and Westat, INS Basic Pilot Evaluation Summary Report (Jan. 29, 2002) ["Summary of Independent Analysis of Basic Pilot"], available at http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/INSBASICpilot_summ_jan292002.pdf.

^[59] Id. at 8.

^[60] Id. at 19.

^[61] Id.

^[62] Id.

^[63] Office of Inspector Gen., Soc. Sec. Admin, Congressional Response Report: Employer Feedback on the Social Security Administration's Verification Programs, A-03-06-26106 (Dec. 18, 2006), available at http://www.ssa.gov/oig/ADOBEPDF/A-03-06-26106.pdf.

^[64] Summary of Independent Analysis of Basic Pilot at 19, supra note 58.

^[65] Id. at 19.

^[66] Id. at 20.

^[67] Id. at 20.

^[68] Inspector General Report on SSA Database at Appendix D, supra note 18.

^[69] For a thorough analysis of the technological pitfalls included in E-Verify, see Peter Neumann, Testimony at a Hearing on Employment Eligibility Verification Systems Before the Subcom. on Social Sec., H. Comm. on Ways & Means, 110th Cong., 3 (June 7, 2007), available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=564.

^[70] Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation Summary, (May 4, 2007), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm.

^[71] See generally, EPIC's page on National ID Cards and the REAL ID Act, http://www.epic.org/privacy/id_cards/ and EPIC, Spotlight on Surveillance, Federal REAL ID Proposal Threatens Privacy and Security (Mar. 2007), http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0307/.

^[72] Mike Madden, U.S. unveils illegal-hire rules, Ariz. Republic, Aug. 11, 2007.

^[73] Ben Lefebvre, State bans use of residency checking tool, Courier News, Aug. 15, 2007.

^[74] Id.

^[75] Press Release, AFL-CIO, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center, AFL-CIO, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center Challenge New Homeland Security Rule, Aug. 29, 2007, available at http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/SSA_Related_Info/ssa003.htm.

^[76] New ‘No Match' Rule at 45,612 – 45,614, 45,617, supra note 7.

^[77] Press Release, AFL-CIO, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center, Court Halts Government from Implementing Flawed Social Security No-Match Rule, Aug. 31, 2007, available at http://www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/SSA_Related_Info/ssa004.htm.

^[78] DHS Remarks on E-Verify Changes, supra note 39; Economics 101: Immigration Measures That Sting, L.A. Times, Aug. 11, 2007.

^[79] Richard M. Stana, Dir., Homeland Sec. & Justice, Gov't Accountability Office, Testimony Before the Subcomm. on Immigration, Border Sec., & Citizenship of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (June 19, 2006), available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06895t.pdf.